Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Processed recycled aggregate that does not count as waste
Supreme Court, Feb. 12, 2026, 2024Do12100 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 폐기물관리법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a substance that has become unnecessary to a business's activities lose its character as waste under Article 2(i) of the former Waste Management Act merely because it is supplied as a raw material for recycling, and is such a substance still waste once the operator has processed it into a finished product that is objectively accepted in social consensus as necessary for human life or business activities?
Holding
No, and no. A substance that became unnecessary to the business does not lose its character as waste merely by being supplied as a raw material for recycling. But where the operator processes it by crushing, sorting, weathering, mixing and ageing into a finished product, and the result is objectively accepted in social consensus as necessary for human life or business activities, that substance may not be regarded as waste. On the facts, the material consigned here was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be waste, so the conviction was reversed and the case sent back.
Points at issue, verbatim
사업장운영자가 위 물질을 파쇄, 선별, 풍화, 혼합 및 숙성의 방법으로 가공한 후 완제품을 생산하는 경우, 위와 같은 가공과정을 거쳐 객관적으로 사람의 생활이나 사업 활동에 필요하다고 사회통념상 승인될 정도에 이르렀더라도 폐기물에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the operator of the business site processes such substance by crushing, sorting, weathering, mixing, and aging, and then produces finished products, whether the substance still constitutes waste, even though, through such processing, it has reached the point of being socially recognized as objectively necessary for human life or business activities (negative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위와 같은 가공과정을 거쳐 객관적으로 사람의 생활이나 사업 활동에 필요하다고 사회통념상 승인될 정도에 이르렀다면 그 물질을 가리켜 사업 활동에 필요하지 아니하게 된 폐기된 물질, 즉 폐기물에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
if, through such processing, it has reached the point of being socially recognized as objectively necessary for human life or business activities, such substance cannot be regarded as a discarded substance that is no longer necessary for business activities, that is, waste
Factors
- 사업장의 사업 활동에 필요하지 아니하게 된 물질이 재활용의 원료로 공급된다는 사정만으로
- 사업장운영자가 위 물질을 파쇄, 선별, 풍화, 혼합 및 숙성의 방법으로 가공한 후 완제품을 생산하는 경우
- 위와 같은 가공과정을 거쳐 객관적으로 사람의 생활이나 사업 활동에 필요하다고 사회통념상 승인될 정도에 이르렀더라도
Unofficial English translation
• merely by a substance that has become unnecessary for the business activities of a business site being supplied as raw material for recycling
• Where the operator of the business site processes such substance by crushing, sorting, weathering, mixing, and aging, and then produces finished products
• even though, through such processing, it has reached the point of being socially recognized as objectively necessary for human life or business activities
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 6. 12. 선고 2008도3108 판결, 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2010도16314 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3108 decided June 12, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16314 decided April 13, 2012, etc.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2008. 6. 12. 선고 2008도3108 판결, 대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2009두6681 판결, 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2010도16314 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where recycled aggregate certified as a finished product and sludge that never passed through the processing route are supplied together, how far does the finished product reach, and at what point is the balance still waste?
The judgment of the Uijeongbu District Court on remand will show what evidence it took to settle whether the material delivered was the finished recycled aggregate. Read the entry again if the former Waste Management Act or its Enforcement Rule, including the classification of recycling types, is amended beyond the version amended by Act No. 21065 of 1 October 2025.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading sees the Court as setting out requirements for the standard, while the independent reading sees it as applying the standard to the facts; the opinion does both, so either emphasis can be defended.
위와 같은 가공과정을 거쳐 객관적으로 사람의 생활이나 사업 활동에 필요하다고 사회통념상 승인될 정도에 이르렀더라도 폐기물에 해당하는지 여부(소극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where recycled aggregate certified as a finished product and sludge that never passed through the processing route are supplied together, how far does the finished product reach, and at what point is the balance still waste?” vs Independent “What additional evidence, if any, could establish on remand that the supplied material retained its legal status as waste?”
The primary reading asks how far the finished product extends when certified aggregate and unprocessed sludge are supplied together. The independent reading asks what evidence on remand could show the waste character was kept.
사업장운영자가 위 물질을 파쇄, 선별, 풍화, 혼합 및 숙성의 방법으로 가공한 후 완제품을 생산하는 경우, 위와 같은 가공과정을 거쳐 객관적으로 사람의 생활이나 사업 활동에 필요하다고 사회통념상 승인될 정도에 이르렀더라도 폐기물에 해당하는지 여부(소극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Uijeongbu District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 12 July 2024 (2023No1680), held that the substance Defendant 2 consigned to Defendant 1 was waste. On that premise it reversed the first-instance judgment, which had acquitted the defendants, and convicted them of consigning business waste to an unlicensed waste treatment operator and of landfilling it away from a waste treatment facility.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the substance had been manufactured at the recycling facility into recycled aggregate for filling, that it may be regarded as falling within recycling type R-4-2, and that there was no material showing a different processing route or character from the certified finished product. It also appeared that the company had intended, from the time of its change and installation reports, to produce recycled aggregate for filling, so the material was likely traded as a finished product. The charge that the substance was waste had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court below had misapprehended the law on waste with an effect on the judgment, and the Justices unanimously reversed and remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A substance supplied only as a raw material for recycling, where the operator does not process it by crushing, sorting, weathering, mixing and ageing into a finished product.
- Processed material that has not reached the level at which it is objectively accepted in social consensus as necessary for human life or business activities.
- Material which the record shows followed a processing route or had a character different from the environmental-label-certified recycled aggregate, since the Court relied on the absence of such material.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the findings the Court relied on: the change report made around 15 May 2020 to self-treat 47,400 tonnes a year, the installation report for the dewatering and drying recycling facility, the environmental label certification under Article 17(1) of the former Act on Support for Environmental Technology and Environmental Industry, and recycling type R-4-2 in Table 4-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Waste Management Act. Then check whether the material delivered to Defendant 1 came from that facility and followed the same processing route, and whether the landfill owners received it as fill. Keep the proof separate: whether the material was waste must be settled against the criminal standard of proof, and this decision does not say who bears that burden.
From the official text
Points at issue
사업장의 사업 활동에 필요하지 아니하게 된 물질이 재활용의 원료로 공급된다는 사정만으로 구 폐기물관리법상 ‘폐기물’로서의 성질을 상실하는지 여부(소극) / 사업장운영자가 위 물질을 파쇄, 선별, 풍화, 혼합 및 숙성의 방법으로 가공한 후 완제품을 생산하는 경우, 위와 같은 가공과정을 거쳐 객관적으로 사람의 생활이나 사업 활동에 필요하다고 사회통념상 승인될 정도에 이르렀더라도 폐기물에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a substance that has become unnecessary for the business activities of a business site loses its nature as 'waste' under the former Wastes Control Act merely by being supplied as raw material for recycling (negative) / Where the operator of the business site processes such substance by crushing, sorting, weathering, mixing, and aging, and then produces finished products, whether the substance still constitutes waste, even though, through such processing, it has reached the point of being socially recognized as objectively necessary for human life or business activities (negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
구 폐기물관리법(2025. 10. 1. 법률 제21065호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger